[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
As a tired professional that needs to keep up with these lists, I can tell
you that your petty squabbles are a waste of my time, and probably everyone
elses. IMHO these are not exactly the Bohr-Einstein letters, and might be
best continued in private :)
-Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Bauer [mailto:luxorxul@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:00 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Hi,
> I am not against XUL outside of Mozilla at all. I
> would love to see many implementations
> of XUL.
Then stop whinning. Whom do you wait for? Microsoft?
Adobe? IBM? Sun? Apple?
> But they have to be XUL. Just pick
> whatever you feel convenient
> ("some mozilla goodies")
> doesn't cut it.
I guess you haven't grasped to concept of
competition yet. Luxor doesn't just pick what feels
convenient.
Luxor cleans up Mozilla XUL and creates a legacy-free
version following the XML footsteps (XML is a
cleaned-up version of SGML).
If I may quote from the Luxor docs:
<quote> Luxor XUL isn't a Mozilla XUL clone and,
therefore, welcomes any ideas that make building UIs
easier.
</quote>
> You need to understand what standard means what
> conformance can do to a technology.
I'm sure you're an expert. Please, educate yourself
before dishing out platitudes.
May I quote from Clay Shirky's article titled
"Interoperability, Not Standards" online @
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/03/15/clay_interop.html
<quote>
Because standardization requires a large enough body
of existing practice to be worth arguing over, and
because P2P engineering is in its early phases, I
believe that a focus on standardization creates two
particular dangers: risk of premature group definition
and damage to meaningful work. Focusing on the more
modest goals of interoperability offers a more
productive alternative, one that will postpone but
improve the eventual standards that do arise.
</quote>
or how about this
<quote>
Even if at this point, P2P were a crystal-clear
definition --within which it was clear which
sub-groups should be adopting standards -- premature
standardization risks destroying meaningful work.
This is the biggest single risk with premature
standardization -- the loss of that critical period of
conceptualization and testing that any protocol should
undergo before it is declared superior to its
competitors. It's tempting to believe that standards
are good simply because they are standard, but to have
a good standard, you first need a good protocol, and
to have a good protocol, you need to test it in
real-world conditions.
</quote>
Still convinced that I'm clueless?
- Gerald
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
